Cogent/Level 3 depeering

John Payne john at sackheads.org
Wed Oct 5 19:48:01 UTC 2005



On Oct 5, 2005, at 3:11 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:

>
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:08:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> You can only be a "tier 1" and maintain global reachability if you 
>> peer
>> with every other tier 1. Level 3 is obviously the real thing, and 
>> Cogent
>> is "close enough" (at least in their own minds :P) that they won't buy
>> real transit, only spot routes for the few things that they are 
>> missing
>> (ATDN and Sprint basically). There is no route "filtering" going on, 
>> only
>> the lack of full propagation due to transit purchasing decisions, or 
>> in
>> this case the lack thereof.
>
> Exactly. And this is why Cogent's statement to the public (and their
> customers) is an outright lie. Level 3 isn't "denying Level 3's
> customers access to Cogent's customers and denying Cogent's customers
> access to Level 3 customers.". It's just that they deny Cogent
> settlement-free direct peering anymore. Cogent can get the L3 and L3
> customer routes elsewhere if they want. But Cogent doesn't. It's 
> Cogents
> decision to break connectivity, not L3's.

I'm wondering why you decided it's Cogent's responsibility to pay 
someone for transit to Level3 and not vice versa?

I'm not saying you're wrong (or right)... but I really don't think it's 
as clear cut as "cogent must...".  Or if it is, it's not obvious to me 
:)


> If I would be a Cogent customer, I would have a _very_ warm word with 
> my
> sales rep why they are trying to bs me with those kind of statements 
> and
> think that I actually am dumb enough to believe that.

What is Level3 telling customers?  Is it more accurate?




More information about the NANOG mailing list